Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > To many people not enough forest
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
cdestroyer
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Posts: 1249 | TRs | Pics
Location: montana
cdestroyer
Member
PostMon Apr 24, 2017 8:47 am 
When I was a kid in montana during the summer we and family friends would go to the west fork of the bitterroot river and the blue joint area. Fish, camp and relax for the weekend. You might see a couple of other families, maybe. If it was a holiday weekend then you would see more. Dad hunted elk in the blue joint. Now there is a fight on to limit access to that region. There are to many people wanting access. Many want to use those loud off road vehicles to recreate. HAMILTON – A coalition of hunters, anglers, horse packers, hikers and conservationists has asked to intervene in a lawsuit challenging the Bitterroot National Forest’s 2016 travel plan. In December, seven multiple-use recreation groups filed suit seeking to force the Bitterroot Forest to redo its travel plan, which shut off thousands of acres classified as Wilderness Study Areas and areas recommended as wilderness to snowmobilers, ATV riders and mountain bikers. The groups that sued said Bitterroot Forest officials ignored key input from the public and violated existing laws and policies to develop the plan establishing where motorized use is allowed. The coalition seeking to intervene says the agency did the right thing by protecting the wild character of the Blue Joint Wilderness Study Area, Sapphire Wilderness Study Area and Selway-Bitterroot Recommended Wilderness Area against increased motorized and mechanized use. The 101,974 acres encompassed by the Sapphire Range and Blue Joint WSAs were set aside by Congress in the Montana Wilderness Study Act of 1977. At the time, Congress ordered the two areas to be managed “so as to maintain their presently existing wilderness character and potential for including in the National Wilderness Preservation System.” At the time, Congress suggested it would make its determination on the future of the areas within five years. That has yet to happen. In 2011, a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling ordered national forests to manage Wilderness Study Areas in accordance with the kinds of recreational use those areas experienced in 1977. The groups say the recommended wilderness areas and wilderness study areas include landscapes that are prized for backcountry hiking, skiing, hunting, fishing and camping. In particular, the Sapphire WSA protects the Sapphire Range biological corridor that provides an important north-south wildlife migration pathway. “Friends of the Bitterroot has worked hard for over 20 years through field monitoring and litigation to ensure enforcement of the Montana Wilderness Study Act,” said Larry Campbell of Friends of the Bitterroot. “We are pleased that the Bitterroot Travel Plan finally resolved to stop the ever-increasing recreational vehicle damage to our shared public wild land and wildlife legacy.” “Sportsmen understand the value of intact, secure wildlife habitat, and know that without these areas, our game populations would suffer,” said Kit Fischer of Hellgate Hunters and Anglers. “We believe the Forest Service’s travel plan is the right step to ensure our big game and other wildlife populations remain healthy for future generations.” Selway-Pintler Wilderness Backcountry Horsemen’s state director Kathy Hundley of Darby said protection of habitat and wildlife is crucial to those seeking a wilderness experience. “Our mountain trails were carved by humans, horses, mules and wildlife over the last several hundred years,” Hundley said. “Riding these trails and experiencing the hush of the backcountry and wilderness brings a traditional sense and a spiritual rebuilding that is important to me and to other riders in this fast-paced, loud and high-tech world we live in today. The travel plan will preserve this experience for future generations.” Earthjustice represents those three organizations plus Missoula Back Country Horsemen, Montana Wilderness Association, WildEarth Guardians and Winter Wildlands Alliance in the intervention request. Bitterroot Forest officials spent more than nine years developing the travel plan after considering a record 13,400 comments. It was the first update to the plan in 40 years. The groups that sued the Bitterroot Forest include the Bitterroot Ridge Runners Snowmobile Club, Ravalli County Off-Road User Association, Bitterroot Backcountry Cyclists, Montana Trail Vehicle Riders Association, Montana Snowmobile Association, Citizens for Balanced Use and Backcountry Sled Patriots. At the time the lawsuit was filed, long-time member of the Bitterroot Ridge Runners and Ravalli County Off-Road User Association Dan Thompson said those groups believed the Forest Service focused on the premise that there were widespread conflicts between motorized and non-motorized recreation groups, a theme that "dominated the travel plan." “The Forest Service addressed those alleged conflicts by creating additional areas of quiet space,'' Thompson said. "We don’t see those conflicts. The data said there weren’t any conflicts." More than half of the Bitterroot National Forest is already in wilderness, he said. “When you consider that half is reserved for quiet users, how can you make the case for a need for more of it?” Thompson

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11272 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostMon Apr 24, 2017 10:17 am 
It wouldn't be so bad if ALL the motorized users stayed on trails. The problem is that one jerk can really tear up ground by going off. I'm sure there is technology to make quietish engines too, but the few jerks won't behave and thus we can't share with them. Then we have the righteous folks on the other extreme who refuse to believe that trails can be shared. They will cite the actions of the jerks. I'd say there are too many jerks in the forest instead of not enough forest.

What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DigitalJanitor
Dirt hippie



Joined: 20 May 2012
Posts: 792 | TRs | Pics
DigitalJanitor
Dirt hippie
PostMon Apr 24, 2017 10:27 am 
cdestroyer wrote:
In December, seven multiple-use recreation groups filed suit seeking to force the Bitterroot Forest to redo its travel plan, which shut off thousands of acres classified as Wilderness Study Areas and areas recommended as wilderness to snowmobilers, ATV riders and mountain bikers.
One of these things is NOT like the others.

~Mom jeans on wheels
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostMon Apr 24, 2017 11:56 am 
treeswarper wrote:
It wouldn't be so bad if ALL the motorized users stayed on trails. The problem is that one jerk can really tear up ground by going off. I'm sure there is technology to make quietish engines too, but the few jerks won't behave and thus we can't share with them. Then we have the righteous folks on the other extreme who refuse to believe that trails can be shared. They will cite the actions of the jerks. I'd say there are too many jerks in the forest instead of not enough forest.
Yeah... that pretty much sums it up. There's plenty of forest - that's not the issue. Concentrations of users in some areas causes problems, which is why the argument for keeping access roads open is important - keeps users dispersed. Sorry, I don't see what the issue is here. If you go into an area with 4x4s, ORVs, or other wheeled, gasoline-powered vehicles and start ripping the place up, you're going to get the boot. Same thing happened over on Oak Creek. The ORV/4x4 user constituency needs to police its own if they don't want that to happen. Same with the mountain bike community.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
iron
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Aug 2008
Posts: 6391 | TRs | Pics
Location: southeast kootenays
iron
Member
PostMon Apr 24, 2017 12:15 pm 
most of the world's problems can more or less be tied into overpopulation of the human race.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Token Civilian
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 590 | TRs | Pics
Token Civilian
Member
PostMon Apr 24, 2017 12:27 pm 
DigitalJanitor wrote:
cdestroyer wrote:
In December, seven multiple-use recreation groups filed suit seeking to force the Bitterroot Forest to redo its travel plan, which shut off thousands of acres classified as Wilderness Study Areas and areas recommended as wilderness to snowmobilers, ATV riders and mountain bikers.
One of these things is NOT like the others.
Really? They're all mechanical transport. All are supported on wheels (idler wheels in the track mechanism of the snow machine). All can move significantly (5x, 10x or more) faster than a person or stock walking. Just because there is no internal combustion engine on a MTB, doesn't mean it isn't mechanical transport. Horse drawn wagons / carts / chariots qualify as mechanical transport and are also banned from Wilderness areas and predate MTBs by thousands of years.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostMon Apr 24, 2017 1:47 pm 
I agree. Wheels should be classed with wheels regardless of what turns them.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11272 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostMon Apr 24, 2017 2:19 pm 
The major complaint seemed to be noise. I'd hardly put bicycles in the noise problem category.

What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostMon Apr 24, 2017 2:28 pm 
I wonder what the track record has been outside study area regions in terms of closures and decommissioning of roads. If it's anything like the Cascades, the onslaught of closures is going to intensify battles over adding even more areas to wilderness designation as other users lose access everywhere outside the study area as well.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Token Civilian
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 590 | TRs | Pics
Token Civilian
Member
PostMon Apr 24, 2017 3:41 pm 
treeswarper wrote:
It wouldn't be so bad if ALL the motorized users stayed on trails. The problem is that one jerk can really tear up ground by going off. I'm sure there is technology to make quietish engines too, but the few jerks won't behave and thus we can't share with them. Then we have the righteous folks on the other extreme who refuse to believe that trails can be shared. They will cite the actions of the jerks. I'd say there are too many jerks in the forest instead of not enough forest.
Isn't, by definition, the actions of the relatively few number of jerks usually the problem, no matter what the topic? When it comes to multi-use trails, I wouldn't have a problem if all users followed the rules of the trail. Wheels yield to feet and hooves (and maintain a slow enough speed at all times to react & yield to other trail users), feet yield to hooves. Riders of hooves keep their critters under control when interacting with the other two. Simple, right? Except that, on multi use trails, it doesn't take but a few jerks on their means of mechanical transport to turn a quiet, peaceful, slow, relaxed trail into what seems like a game of Frogger or Death Race. Hardly the peaceful, slow, relaxed experience one seeks when going for a hike. Noise sucks Tree, no doubt, but that is hardly the worst of it, IMO. Having a jerk come around a blind corner doing 15-18 MPH and unable to stop before they run you down is downright dangerous. Heck, even if there isn't a jerk coming bombing around the corner, that there COULD be a jerk doing that puts the edge on me when I'm hiking. Hence, I generally don't use multi-use trails on foot. For the sake of clarity, as I've said many times before: I ride a carbon frame, 29-er full suspension MTB. I love the trails outside of Bend, west of town. Lots of them are bike only and one way - so they're safe and fun to really open up and haul @$$ on. No way in heck could you do that (and be responsible) if there could be someone coming up the trail, or pedestrians or stock on them. They're also built for MTBs, with features (banked turns, extra vertical elements / PUDs, jumps, etc) that make them awful hiking or stock trails. In re the original article - if these are WSA's, it doesn't do well to have non-Wilderness permitted activities established in those areas, at least until Congress acts one way or the other. Allowing moto or MTB activity could potentially end up causing a "grandfathered in" situation to those activities, which, IMO, is not good for the overall integrity of Wilderness designated lands. I suspect all parties would be better served by turning to Congress and pressuring them to fish or cut bait on the Wilderness designation. Doubly so since this area has apparently been sitting in this not-Wilderness-but-not-normal-multi-use-forest limbo since '77. If it'll be full on Wilderness, hey great, make the law Congress-critters. If not, then off your backsides and rescind the WSA designation so the forest is open to the full range of appropriate activities on National Forest Land.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostMon Apr 24, 2017 5:09 pm 
Too reasonable. The current situation avoids the trouble of getting a vote to go their way while still keeping the area as defacto wilderness due to the bans.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11272 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostMon Apr 24, 2017 6:35 pm 
I am not an advocate of either side. If anything, in this part of the world, I do not care for how the dealers have sold the ATVs to folks and then the new owners find out that they are very limited where they can go. That would cause a bit of anger, don't you think? We see it here. Or we used to-- a trailer of ATVs comes into the forest only to find out that there is one trail they can use. The rest of the motorized trails are limited to dirt bikes. There has been talk of allowing ATVs on some of the grown over roads, but that talk is from people with no power. The previous district ranger just said no--no ATV trails until other trails can be maintained. The ATV folks were persistent and attended, and still do, the few planning meetings held for projects. They raise money and they try to educate folks by having a booth and sometimes a raffle at various events. But to my knowledge, they still have only one trail that is legal to ride on. If I went motorized, and I think about it for getting to the huckleberry areas that are not quite grown over, I'd go with a dirt bike. ATVs seem awkward and clumsy to me. Saw a guy on a small bike come out of the Mud Lake area and it looked like quite a nice way to get around on our terrible roads. It wasn't overly noisy and he was going at a pretty mellow speed. Not everybody is a jerk, but the jerks stick in our memories more than the boring, well mannered folks.

What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
tod701
Member
Member


Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 144 | TRs | Pics
Location: Stanwood
tod701
Member
PostMon Apr 24, 2017 7:50 pm 
treeswarper wrote:
Not everybody is a jerk, but the jerks stick in our memories more than the boring, well mannered folks.
Very true. Nothing frustrates a responsible rider more than a jerk. The vast majority of off road motorcyclists police their own. The major organizations stress the importance of this. More still needs to be done. ORV noise can be reduced. There are loud jerks and there are folks on bikes intentionally set up to be quiet. Unfortunately (or fortunately) a lot less well mannered people notice the well mannered and quiet riders.

Tod
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Steve
Phlogiston Purveyor



Joined: 29 Jan 2002
Posts: 769 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bothell
Steve
Phlogiston Purveyor
PostWed Apr 26, 2017 5:56 pm 
Last October after I got canned from Boeing the dog and I spent a few days hiking around the Bitterroot valley and visiting the craft breweries in Stevensville and Hamilton. I'd love to move there. It's beautiful country and not many people.

Despair is only for those who see the end beyond all doubt.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
NacMacFeegle
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Jan 2014
Posts: 2653 | TRs | Pics
Location: United States
NacMacFeegle
Member
PostSat May 06, 2017 8:11 am 
Wheels belong on roads and nowhere else. Motorized recreation should have no place on public land. When you consider how increasingly crowded wild places are becoming as the population grows, the need to reduce per-capita impact becomes apparent. Banning motorized recreation and restricting mechanical transportation to roads is a simple and effective way of reducing our impact on public land and improving the experience of visiting public land for the majority of users. It is also important to realize that banning a mode of transportation does not limit access, nor does it ban the people using that mode of transportation. The must simply leave their vehicles where they belong - on the road.

Read my hiking related stories and more at http://illuminationsfromtheattic.blogspot.com/
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > To many people not enough forest
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum